The Importance of Context in Managerial Work: the Case of Senior Hotel Managers in Greece

View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Bournemouth University Research Online The importance of context in managerial work: the case of senior hotel managers in Greece Charalampos Giousmpasoglou Business School, Bahrain Polytechnic, Kingdom of Bahrain1 Abstract Qualitative research on the interplay between context and hospitality managerial work has not been previously addressed in literature. Based on Johns (2006) and Dierdorff et al. (2009) work, this research suggests that luxury senior hotel managers (GMs and department managers) are recipients of contextual/cultural influences to a certain degree, depending on the ownership status of the hotel. It is also argued that managerial work is shaped and exercised by a set of moderating factors, which are unique for each individual. Overall, this research aims to increase the level of awareness and trigger further research in this topic area. Key Words Managerial work, Context, Luxury hotels, Greece Paper Type Research Paper INTRODUCTION For the past half-century, management scholars and practitioners have engaged in research to describe managerial work. This body of research has focused on making management an absolute science, making important strides in creating a body of ‘standard’ (common) management practices. Along the way they created generations of managers who believed that managerial work could be described in absolute terms, even quantified, and that predictions about some future business events could be devised (i.e. through scenario planning and modeling, or trend analysis). In short, too many managers gave the science of management more credit for being mature than the field deserved, based on extensive use of data and information, and not necessarily on more tacit inputs, such as context. Address correspondence to Dr. Charalampos Giousmpasoglou, Business School, Bahrain Polytechnic, PO Box 33349, Isa Town, Kingdom of Bahrain, E-mail: [email protected]; [email protected] 1 Although organisational studies provide evidence that context matters to managerial work, theoretical efforts describing the relationships between context and managerial work have remained absent. The way in which work context shapes the requirements of managerial role enactment is a vital issue in its own right, because the extent to which individuals view various activities and attributes as important to enacting their work roles is central to how they ultimately perform those roles (Dierdorff & Rubin, 2007). Given the paucity of literature in this area, the purpose of this paper is to explore the interplay of context with managerial work in the Greek luxury hotel sector. In order to achieve this, there are three objectives: To identify the key managerial roles performed by senior managers (GMs and department managers) in the Greek luxury hotel sector. To explore the level of influence of the local/national context to managerial work. To develop a model of the process through which definitions and perceptions of the required management roles in different contexts are formed. LITERATURE REVIEW Managerial Work in Context Theoretical and empirical efforts focusing on the interplay between work context and managerial roles have been conspicuously absent despite the recognition that context meaningfully shapes organisational behaviour (Dierdorff et al., 2009). Work context can be thought of as a set of moderating factors that influence the employee’s behaviour and adaptation (Strong et al., 1999). Dierdorff et al. (2009) suggest that there have been two exceptions to this general tendency. The first exception refers to scholars who have studied managers at work, by interviewing or observing them as they go about their day-to-day activities (Carlson, 1951; Kotter, 1982; Luthans et al., 1985; Mintzberg, 1973, 1994; Sayles, 1964; Silverman & Jones, 1976; Stewart, 1982). The second exception refers to scholars who have been interested in how organisational factors can influence managerial behaviour from a cognitive perspective (Hammer & Turk, 1987; Osborn & Hunt, 1975). Stewart (1982) showed that all managerial jobs offer choice and that managers perceive similar jobs in personal ways. Other studies using a cognitive approach are Hannaway (1989) and Watson (2001). 2 Another crucial aspect that is largely neglected in managerial work research is premised in the fact that, the structure of work in organisations is partially a social construction (Sanchez & Levine, 2000; Weick, 1979). Thus, the job performed by organisational members reflects specific activities performed within the job as well as the capabilities, preferences, and opinions of the role holders (Morgeson & Campion, 1997). Because of this, similar roles are often enacted in different ways (Biddle, 1979; Graen, 1976; Katz & Kahn, 1978) within different contexts (Dierdorff & Morgeson, 2007; Johns, 2006). More recently Dierdorff et al. (2009) argued that context can exert a profound influence on what work role requirements are more or less important for managers. Despite this implicit recognition, and the fact that managerial work roles occur in diverse work contexts, there have been very few empirical examinations of how different aspects of work context shape managerial behavior (Dierdorff & Morgeson, 2007; Mowday & Sutton, 1993; Schneider, 1983). This gap in managerial work role literature is not necessarily surprising given the general lack of consideration of context in organisational research (Cappelli & Sherer, 1991; Hattrup & Jackson, 1996; Johns, 2006). Placing Managerial Work in Context Knowing how to understand and leverage context remains one of the most basic requirements in work life, yet very difficult to achieve in managerial work (Cortada, 2009). Johns (2006, p.386) defines context as ‘situational opportunities and constraints that affect the occurrence and meaning of organisational behaviour as well as functional relationships between variables’. In his review, Johns (ibid.) puts forth a categorical model of context that can be used to inform inquiry about such influences on managerial roles. Specifically, he conceptualised context at two levels. The first level is termed omnibus context and the second discrete context. According to Johns (2006, p.391) the term omnibus ‘refers to an entity that comprises many features or particulars’. The omnibus context provides information about the broad essential elements of a given context and describes managerial roles’ moderating influences collectively in a non- differentiated manner (Johns, 2006). Dierdorff et al. (2009) suggest that the omnibus context is synonymous with occupation when studying work roles; they also argue that occupation accounts for variance in the importance of role requirements across different managerial work roles. Such variances 3 in effect linked to omnibus context suggest that managerial requirements that are technical/ administrative are likely to be the most occupation specific, whereas interpersonal and conceptual requirements are more universally important. On the other hand, discrete context seeks to identify specific situational variables that impact behavior directly or indirectly (Dierdorff et al., 2009). Discrete context can be viewed as nested within omnibus context such that the effects of omnibus context are mediated by discrete contextual variables; these variables might apply to any level of analysis, from individuals to industries (Johns, 2006). Three important components compose the discrete context and shape role requirements: task context, social context, and physical context (Hattrup & Jackson, 1996, Johns, 2006; Mowday & Sutton, 1993). A type of discrete context discussed by Johns (2006) is the discrete occupational context. Discrete occupational contexts arise from the nature of the work itself, such that ‘knowing someone’s occupation permits reasonable inferences about his or her task, social, and physical environment at work, which, in turn, can be used to predict behaviour and attitudes’ (Johns, 2006, p.393). Building on managerial work role literature and Johns’ (2006) categorical model of work context, Dierdorff et al. (2009) developed an integrative meso-level framework (House et al., 1995) that links features of the work context (omnibus context) to individual role enactment (discrete context). The importance of the identification of a mesotype relationship between the omnibus and the discrete contexts lies in the fact that allows us to make limited generalizations about specific categories of occupational groups; in other words allows us to create different managerial profiles in the same job. The existence of discrete occupational contexts allows us the creation of generic descriptions in occupational contexts i.e. luxury hotel managers. Thus, the research conducted was an effort to map managerial work in luxury hotels in Greece, based on the existing occupational context. Managerial Work in Hotels The profile of the modern hotel GM, has been largely affected from the multinational (MNC) hotel chains, operating worldwide. The early adoption of internationalisation in the hotel industry came initially from U.S. hotel companies, who took the lead and moved across borders for supply and 4 demand reasons; that was to satisfy the needs of American travellers as other trades internationalised (Nickson, 1998; Thompson et al., 1998). Since the early 1980s a growing number of these original American operators were acquired by U.K. based companies, and simultaneously

Load more